Undeclared War vs Mutual Assured Destruction

Cyber-warfare is real and dangerous; just how dangerous to our system is becoming clear.Also becoming clear is the reality that major geopolitical entities are engaging in it full time.Groups like Isis and Al Qaeda apparently lack the massive computer power to engage quite so effectively. However toxins,poisonous gases ,viral and bacterial infectious agents can be obtained and can be opened in plains trains. etc and flung into reservoirs,lakes and dams relatively easily.The scenarios from TV where emergency rooms are taken over by the military and summarily organized into triage based operations are exactly what will have to happen.It is not as some have erroneously suggested that the poor who use ERs for basic health(and it is more expensive by a lot than routine care)will be targeted first,but that their occupancy of what will have to become a first line of belated defense will have to be ended.What is not sufficiently understood is that health care is not only simultaneously,a commodity, a right, a privilege etc. but importantly a critical defense asset that must be better organized not sufficiently state by state but nationally.

Daedal2207 is correct. We face some fearful threats. As a way to increase the power of government the liberal mayor of Chicago, Ron Emanuel, once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” To advance the “progressive” socialist agenda the promotion of fears about a possible crisis can substitute for one that is actually upon us. We face a dilemma. The best government for heading an active war situation is not the best government for advancing the general welfare. What sacrifice of life quality (in the full sense of the word) should we suffer in order to achieve a war-like preparation for a “crisis” that may turn out to be great, small, or non-existent? And what proof is there that overall healthcare would not develop better personnel and facilities if unfettered from government’s waste and narrowness of vision?
And what makes healthcare a “right”? A person or persons wishing it to be so does not make it so. A religion (or religious-like political party) may invent it as one of its believed-to-be-good moral invectives, but in our country we are supposed to be free to join or avoid religion. Is this personal liberty to be sacrificed? Maybe it could be passed into a law obligating you and others to serve you and others (or else!). There are a number of laws that head us in this direction, but that does not mean that the creation of such a “right” will actually evolve a better care system than would those not imposing such endless, resource-draining, obligations. Healthcare as a “right” imposes an endless draw on resources because we all die, many with extensive and expensive diseases. Given that it is a certainty that resources will not be available to forever maintain all lives, people (panels?) will have to decide who receives (lives longer) and who does not (dies). Is it really a good idea to assign to people in (any) government this kind of power over its citizens?